Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Greg Pope in the Chair]
MC 01  Seafish
MC 02  Lydd Town Council
MC 03 - Countryside Council for Wales

Greg Pope: Before we start, I should say that it is perfectly acceptable for Members to remove their jackets, as I have done myself.

Clause 117

Grounds for designation of MCZs

Richard Benyon: I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 117, page 78, line 35, at end insert
(c) the scientific basis behind the designation (including local conservation, environmental and global science) and confirmation that it has been accepted as valid by the Marine Management Organisations Chief Scientific Adviser and the Science Advisory Panel..
Good afternoon, Mr. Pope. It is a great pleasure to be under your watchful eye this afternoon, as it will be in many sittings in the coming two or three weeks.
In considering clause 117 we come to the heart of the Bill and an issue that a large number of organisations have a particular interest in: marine conservation zones. This morning we were talking about the term best science, which is particularly relevant to this area. Clause 117 outlines
Grounds for designation of MCZs.
Our amendment would insert a paragraph to expand on the scientific element of the designation of MCZs, and ensure that we meet two key objectives. The first objective is, in the designation of MCZs, to secure the inclusion of all types of science in the process of consideration by the four regional MCZ projects, the statutory nature conservation bodies, the Marine Management Organisation and the Secretary of State. The second objective is to ensure the validity of what constitutes best available science.
The designation of MCZs will be based, as we know, on the best available science. However, currently there is neither a definition of that term nor any safeguard to ensure that such science is widely recognised as being valid and a meaningful contribution.
One of the biggest threats to the marine environment is of course climate change. However, when the Government refer to best available science it is unclear whether they are including climate change science or what some people refer to as global science. Given the importance of minimising the impact of climate change, we believe the Bill should be amended to include consideration of global science matters such as climate change and other recognised global or international science, in order better to inform the MCZ designation process.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the Minister in the other place, has given verbal assurances that best available science means science that is, as he put it,
peer-reviewed in the normal way.
However, it would be helpful if the Committee received the same assurance from the Minister today.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I echo the hon. Gentlemans remarks about you, Mr. Pope; it will be very good to serve under you today and in the coming weeks.
Amendment 14, which has been tabled in the names of the hon. Members for Newbury, for Upminster, for East Devon, for Clwyd, West and for Broxbourne, relates to MCZs and examines the important issue of science and how it is recognised within the clause. As the hon. Member for Newbury rightly said, for many people the clause is the Bill in many ways. The amendment also recommends that the MMOs chief scientific adviser validate the science involved in each designation decision.
We are absolutely and entirely in agreement with the hon. Member for Newbury on the importance of the science, and I echo the comments of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. Science is absolutely fundamental in determining where we will designate sites for MCZs. The drafting of clause 117 (1) ensures that scientific criteria form the basis of site proposals. It sets out specific grounds for designating MCZs, including the number and diversity of
(a) marine flora or fauna;
(b) marine habitats or types of marine habitat;
(c) features of geological or geomorphological interest.
I would like to make it clear, given that this is an important issue for the Committee, that clause 117 has been so drafted to ensure that science must, by necessity, form the basis of site proposals. In fact, the number and diversity of marine fauna and flora could not be determined without scientific evidence. Failure to make a designation decision on the basis of scientific evidence would mean, first, that the designating authority did not take account of reasonable considerations; secondly, that it would therefore have acted unreasonably; and thirdly, that the decision could then be considered for judicial review.
Although the science is imperativeit is so stated in clause 117I do not think that the clause needs to include a specific reference to science. It is shot through the clause. Lord Greaves, in the other place, made a pertinent point on a similar Conservative amendment:
I suspect, although it is normal for opposition parties generally to want more in Bills rather than less, that the Government are trying to be minimalist about what is in it. Nevertheless, I am not sure why the Conservative amendment,[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 May 2009; Vol. 710, c. 1028.]
to ensure that the grounds for designating MCZs are based on science, is necessary, in the light of the provisions in the Bill.
The amendment is well intentioned; we completely agree on the importance of science in making these conservation-based decisions. However, I do not think that including in the definition of science the words
including local conservation, environmental and global science
would add anything to our understanding. It merely suggests that science should include local and global evidence. I believe that the hon. Member for Newbury is seeking a reassurance on our understanding and intentions regarding scientific evidence. I can reassure hon. Members that we fully expect to consider all relevant science, be it global or local, when designating MCZs. I am pleased that this amendment has highlighted the importance of keeping our definition of science flexible enough to allow for future developments in scientific knowledge and techniques. He rightly referred to climate change. We are facing ocean acidification and will face many other challenges over the next four, five or 10 years.
I shall deal now with the second aim of the amendment. Although I understand the desire for transparent assurances that MCZs have been designated in line with valid science, that is not a role for MMO scientific advisers. MCZs will be designated by the Secretary of State on advice and recommendations from Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. They are our scientific and conservation advisers. They are the Governments statutory nature conservation bodies and have the necessary nature conservation expertise. We want part 5 of the Bill to have a conservation focus to ensure that the environment is adequately considered. It is therefore vital that the advice comes from the conservation bodies set up to do that. The Bill will ensure that the science is given the consideration desired, and as intended by the first part of the amendment.
The MMO, its chief scientific adviser or the Science Advisory Panel can, of course, make representations during consultation on proposed MCZs, and I fully expect them to do so. The appropriate authoritythe Secretary of State, the Welsh Assembly Government and so onwould take such representations into account. We fully expect a transparent process in which the public too can view the scientific advice on MCZ designations. For example, Natural England will publish its advice to the Secretary of State setting out the results of regional projects as well as its own scientific recommendations. Consultation comments on potential MCZ sites and the Governments responses will also be made public, as they should be. We want this to be transparent.
The Bill ensures that science will form the basis, as it should, of MCZ designation.

Roger Williams: I think that everybody here today supports this element of the Bill, but would like to get it right. Of course, science is key, and the Minister says that without it a decision could be open to judicial review. Has he any estimate of the amount of sea bed that has attached to it sufficient scientific evidence and knowledge to make these designations?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact figure, but I can tell him that our knowledge today has significantly advanced from what it was a year or two ago. There is not only the work that the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science is carrying out; many marine agencies, including academic institutions, are mapping the sea bed and bringing forward science that is surprising and challenging us. That is the way it should be. Regional projects will have the science put in front of them, and they will work through it and take matters forward. The MMO chief scientific adviser undoubtedly has a role in that, as he has a role to input upwards to the Secretary of State. The definitive guidance has to be that of the nature conservation advisers, which are JNCC and Natural England. Putting the focus on science is absolutely right, and it is there in clause 117.
As I have stated, if these decisions were not based on good science, they would be wide open to judicial review. On that basis, while empathising with the thrust of the amendment, I urge the hon. Member for Newbury to withdraw it, because his first criterion is satisfied and as for the second, the chief scientist can have an input but is not the appropriate person to sign this off.

Richard Benyon: I am always in favour of the less is more argument and if that is the case, I may have been given some assurance by the Minister. I am reassured that all science would be covered under the provision. I would like to see a bit more compulsion on the JNCC and Natural England to adopt that approach in the Bill. If the Minister is assuring me, as I think he is, that that is in the guidance or the schedule, I can live with that. I put down as a marker that a lot depends on the nature of the chief scientist at the MMO and the board over which he will sit. If it is to be the body that we want, they will make sure that their interests and those of the marine environment are represented from a scientific perspective, which is what we want to achieve.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire made an interesting intervention on issues such as sea bed mapping. I have looked closely at the processes involved and the methodology of CEFAS. I have discovered through research that it should be possible to fill in the gaps in sea bed mapping, certainly in our inshore waters. Towards the end of 2010 we should be in a position to know what is there.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman is right. Many colleagues attended when we recently brought RMS Endeavour from CEFAS up the Thames through the raised Tower bridge and showed them some of the science that is going on. His colleagues from the other place also came to see what we are doing with the science and what inroads we are making. By the time we bring forward an ecologically coherent network, our knowledge could be sufficient to make good decisions that will satisfy conservation criteria and others who use the sea and want to know where they can safely carry out their activity for the benefit of conservation.

Richard Benyon: I am grateful for those remarks. I, too, saw Endeavour when it was here and saw the methodology on my visit to Lowestoft. Given the Ministers assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Richard Benyon: I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 117, page 79, line 9, at end insert
(7A) Where the authority considers the desirability of designating two or more areas to be equal, in reaching their decision as to which area (or areas) to designate it may have regard to any social or economic consequences of designation, subject to the achievement of the objective set out in section 123(2)..

Greg Pope: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 16, in clause 119, page 80, line 41, at end insert
(c) the Marine Management Organisation on social and economic factors regarding the designation of MCZ sites..

Richard Benyon: We seek to clarify the process of designation, which is one of the most important parts of the Bill. The first part of the process should be to identify which sites could qualify on the basis of pure science. That should be the first criterion. The next stage should be to pare those downusing socio-economic factors, if required, at that point in the process. Those factors need not mitigate against designation as there will be plenty of examples in which science-based conservation factors will live happily with socio-economic requirements, not least elements of tourism such as eco-tourism. Taking socio-economic factors into account at the start of the process would or could restrict the ability to secure an ecologically coherent network of marine conservation zones. The problem with seeking marine sanctuaries under existing legislation, principally the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, has been that very few sites have been designated purely because socio-economic considerations were applied too early in the process.
We are also concerned about how the Bill will sit with the Marine (Scotland) Bill, which states that socio-economic factors will be considered only when choosing between two sites of equal value. Our amendment would make the UK Bill reflect the position in the Scottish Bill. In our debates this morning, the Minister said that there should be coherence between England and Scotland in terms of the MMO, so surely that principle should apply across the designation process. The socio-economic consequences of designation should not compromise the desirability of designating two or more areas of equal status, or the ability to achieve an ecologically coherent network of sites. Socio-economic factors should be considered in the management of a site, and therefore every MCZ will need a management plan.
Amendment 16 is designed to place a duty on the MMO to provide advice on social and economic matters directly to the Secretary of State to ensure that there is balanced consideration of the three pillars of sustainable development during the MCZ designation process. That process commences with four regional MCZ projects, which involve a range of interested parties assessing options for MCZs within their region, having taken a range of evidence to assist their analysis. Their proposals then go to Natural England, which rationalises the lists and forwards proposals to the Secretary of State with its own advice and supplementary information. The Secretary of State will then consider and decide how to designate the proposed MCZsor not.
Given the statutory conservation duties and ethos of Natural England, it will not have all the required skills and expertise properly to assess the social and economic factors, and neither is it likely to consider such matters to be of equal importance. Given the recent Government amendment in clause 2(2), strengthening the MMOs role to allow it to
take any action which it considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of furthering any social, economic or environmental purposes,
and provided that the MMO has the right balance of skills and expertise, it could play a meaningful role in advising the Secretary of State on the economic and social implications of designating individual MCZs. That would ensure that there was balanced consideration of all key factors when deciding whether proposed areas are suitable for designation as marine conservation zones.

Martin Salter: As I said this morning, it is worth looking back at the extensive scrutiny undertaken by the Joint Committee, on which at least four hon. Members in this Committee served. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Newbury has not gone down the road urged by some non-governmental organisations. The amendment that was listed but not selected would delete all reference to socio-economic activity, and was based on flawed thinking. There are socio-economic activities and there are socio-economic activitiessome activities are entirely cognisant of good environmental practice. Creating MCZs can create jobs and environmental opportunities. Wind power can create jobs, as can fishing opportunities that were hitherto unavailable due to the pillaging of our coastline by the commercial sector. It is therefore good that, collectively, we have backed away from that and stood firm on the principle that socio-economic factors have a role to play.
There is a danger that we could be making the detail a point of principle when it is not. I am slightly uncomfortable with amendment 16, which creates a requirement to advise of socio-economic activities, and the way in which it fits with amendment 15, which tells the authority to take socio-economic activities into account only where MCZs are of equal value. I was initially attracted to the idea, but there is a danger that we could constrain decisions that we might wish the MMO and the Secretary of State to enact.
The Joint Committee said in paragraph 115:
We recommend that the scoping of potential locations for Marine Conservation Zones should be based on the best scientific evidence, taking into account their representative nature, uniqueness, threat and sensitivity.
That is fineand there is no disagreement with thatbut we went on to say:
We also emphasise the need to pay regard to existing international obligations...the socio-economic costs and benefits of MCZs, and the ability of zones to accommodate other forms of use without harming their integrity, once the potential sites have been identified.
A firm position was not taken; there was a recognition that socio-economic factors had to be weighed in the balance. I think that the Minister can avoid the confrontation that was evident this morning in the robustness of his response. We want to be assured that good science is the primary consideration when designating MCZs, and that other factors follow. There may be socio-economic factors that make good environmental sense, are of primary importance, and apply to two MCZs of equal value, but do we really want to inhibit what we can do in circumstances that are not very remote? The Minister needs to address that problem.
I pay tribute to the Government for moving their position from the one that they took in the original Bill. Hon. Members will remember that it said that socio-economic factors shall be taken into account. We are now in a different place. We are where the Joint Committee wanted us to be, as we are saying that they may be taken into account. It is not the function of this scrutinyand my goodness the Bill has been scrutinizedto restrict the opportunity to do the right thing further down the road. My message to Opposition Membersif the Minister is able to answer the legitimate concerns and points that have been raisedis that we may be able to keep the consensus that, I hope, will run through the rest of the debate.

Andrew George: As other hon. Members have said, it is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Pope. May I explain to the hon. Member for Reading, West the purpose of the amendment that I tabled but which was not selected? On Second Reading, in column 719, I argued that socio-economics should be taken into account, but should not contradict the fundamentals of sound science, because that is the basis of recognising the need to protect something particularly fragile and unique. However, at the point where one is implementing a plan to protect a said site, socio-economics need to be considered. The voices and considerations of the users of the marine resource should at least be heard at that stage, to see whether there are ways in which their activity operates that are not damaging; we want to find out whether they can amend the way in which they go about their occupation so that there is less damage. The designation should fundamentally be based on sound science and as many objective measurements as possible, and we should not be diverted from that aim.

Hugo Swire: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is enough protection in the Bill for a place such as Lyme bay, in my own constituency? It is often used as a safe haven, most recently by the Napoli, and there is some economic benefit in that. However, the adverse environmental impact from a spillage of oilsuch events used to occur when there were ship-to-ship oil transferson what is a UNESCO world heritage site must be balanced against such activity. Is he satisfied that the checks and balances are there, and that places such as a UNESCO world heritage site can be factored in, rather than just the marine-based environment?

Andrew George: I do not have the hon. Gentlemans intimate knowledge of the particular circumstances of Lyme bay, on which I am sure he is articulate. Am I satisfied that the balance has been struck? The answer is that I am not certain, but I should have thought that that was the purpose of the clause.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Perhaps I may assist by clarifying the position. While much of the focus is understandably on marine conservation zones, as part of the ecologically coherent network that we are talking about, we will ensure that we will include Lyme bay, the Natura 2000 sites and other locations that may come along. MCZs do not stand entirely alone as an entitythey will take into account sites of special scientific interest, estuarine environments and so on. Indeed, that is a coherent way to manage the different interests in the marine environment, and to recognise that where we have special habitats, we protect them very carefully indeed.

Andrew George: Certainly, the question of European designations and coastline UNESCO sites is relevant. One of the points that I had made in this mornings sitting was about terrestrial planning and the relationship between that and the designations and protections that are available on the coastline. They are within the provenance of democratically elected local authorities either to protect, or to ensure that they take measures to respect the integrity of the kind of sites that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. It is important that local authorities and the locality are able to engage in the process itself. That is the aspect that, with regard to the arguments that I was advancing this morning, needs to be further developed.
The primary point advanced by amendment 15 is something that I raised on Second Reading. There are two types of marine conservation zones. First, there are MCZs that have a unique feature that is not replicable anywhere else; they are fragile marine sites that justify their designation as MCZs in their own right. Some such areas will coincide with or complement the sites mentioned by the Minister a moment ago in terms of their Ramsar, or other European or international, designation and protection. Such sites should be given special protection and we should go to great lengths to achieve that.
The second group of sites are part of a network, and their purpose, as I understand it, is that they are representative of a particular type of marine habitat and biodiversity. Amendment 15 relates to such sites. If we are to consider socio-economic factors at the designation stage, it would be appropriate for them to be brought to bear on such sites. I also believe that socio-economic considerations need to be brought to bear at the implementation stage, which comes after the designation stage, and relates to the application of the individual protection programme, as well as the measures proposed by the MMO and other bodies to advance the protection of marine conservation zones. The designation stage is simply one factor in the process; it is the measures taken within each marine conservation zones that will be relevant to the affected industries and coastal communities.
The hon. Member for Reading, West queried whether amendment 16 was necessary. If amendment 15, which I support, is successful, I do not think that amendment 16 would be necessary and it would be curious for us to continue to debate it. The issue under discussion is important and is very much the nub of the issue if we want to achieve a confluence between ensuring that we maintain economically sustainable coastal communities on the one hand, and ensuring that we, as an island nation state, tackle environmental challenges on the other. Getting the balance right between all of those interests is important, and it very much focuses on this clause. I hope that the Minister will take into account a measured amendment that would clearly improve and clarify the nature of how socio-economic considerations will be addressed.

Charles Walker: I will make a very short contribution. The Bill is in danger of being subsumed by jargon. I do not really know what socio-economic means, to be perfectly honest. Is it possible to have marine conservation and create jobs? Of course it is. It is possible to have increased recreational fishing opportunities, increased diving opportunities and increased tourism in conservation areas, so of course conservation is compatible with creating sustainable employment. I become concerned, however, when socio-economic strays into the area of big infrastructure projects.
Over the next three weeks, I am going to bore the Committee tirelessly with my concerns about the Severn estuary. The Minister said that things will be based on good science. There is virtually no more important ecological site in Europe or the world than the Severn estuary, but I am concerned that socio-economic considerations will be used as a Trojan horse to overturn all the good science relating to the Severn estuary and to ensure that a dam is built across it, with all the damage that that will cause the natural marine environment.
If I could ask one thing of the Minister it is that he break down what the word socio-economic means. Does it mean that marine conservation takes a back seat when that is in the national interest? Alternatively, does it mean that we will have a brave Bill and that future Governments will be brave, do the right thing by the marine environment and sometimes say no to major infrastructure projects of national importance?

Nick Ainger: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Pope. I want to comment on a couple of the points that have been made and I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in response.
First, the hon. Member for St. Ives was absolutely right to talk about the need to establish a balance. All colleagues have been contacted by non-governmental organisations that are concerned that the inclusion of socio-economic issues will be used to overturn the conservation elements. That is the issue, and that is why those organisations are concerned.
As someone whose constituency has some of the most precious habitats and special areas of conservation, as well as major energy developments and huge volumes of shipping, I understand those concerns. However, the fact remains that despite the accidents and incidents, and despite the intense industrial activity on that part of the coast and the seas immediately offshore, we still have these precious areas, and they are still protected. There is therefore no question but that a balance can be struck.
The Minister needs to give those who have raised such concerns with us an assurance that conservation is the No. 1 issue, but there will be circumstanceswe have to be clear about thiswhere important socio-economic issues will have to be addressed.
For example, there is a range of issues in Cardigan bay, which has a major school of common dolphins. There is a clash with the scallop dredging there, which is substantially damaging the sea bed. Through the food chain, that will undoubtedly have an effect on dolphins. That may well be addressed. One way of addressing itI am not suggesting that this is the solutioninvolves offshore wind farms. There may be pressures to introduce offshore wind farms, and a wind farm might address some of the issues in the area.
To return to the point made by the hon. Member for East Devon, my constituency saw the Sea Empress oil spill in 1996, when 72,000 tonnes of crude oil were deposited on the coast of my constituency without my permission. Again, we must be clear and honest with people that establishing marine conservative zones will not prevent a Sea Empress or a Napoli, because pollution travels. The Sea Empress was entering the Milford Haven waterway when it ran aground, but the spill covered an area of hundreds of square miles.. I am sure, knowing that area, that there is likely to be an MCZ designation. However, that area is an awfully long way from where the incident occurred, so we must make it clear that MCZ designation will not prevent the impact of a Sea Empress, or even of a Napoli.

Hugo Swire: I well remember the incident to which the hon. Gentleman alludes. In my constituency, we were fortunate not to suffer too much pollution from the Napoli incident. There was some pollution, but it was not too bad. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that an MCZ designation would not prevent pollution in such circumstances. What would prevent it, and would be a preventive measure anyway, is the creation of safe havens around the UK coast where ships in distress could go, for which Brussels has been calling for some time. I would argue that Lyme bay should not be one of those safe havens. That measure would help.

Nick Ainger: I accept that the trouble might be that as a safe haven is presumably a relatively sheltered area, there might be the unfortunate coincidence that it has protected species and one ends up trying to make a sensible and balanced decision. I would be grateful to hear how the Minister sees the balance being struck, because that is the issue. People out there believe that purely because there is a reference in the Bill to socio-economic issues, they will automatically override the conservation issue. The Minister has to assure us on that point.

Huw Irranca-Davies: It is a great privilege to follow those contributions, because this issue really goes to the heart of the Bill. There has been a lot of concern about it and a lot of questions need answering, which I will try to do now. It is also a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire, whose constituency in many ways will have to be a model of how the process works. With the intensity of oil and gas, and liquefied natural gas coming in, together with the potential for renewables, the still viable fisheries as far afield as Cardigan bay, and the sea fisheries, sea angling and intense recreation in parts of my hon. Friends constituencywe see these things around our coastwhat better example is there of the way forward?
The premise of the Bill is that first, we have the great win of a complete marine planning system, and secondly, we have these jewels within it that we call marine conservation zones. As has rightly been pointed out, and as I hope I said earlier and will therefore reiterate now, these zones are based on science. Science underpins MCZs. Those jewels are multifaceted, multicoloured and of different shapes. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West has quoted from the House of Lords Joint Committee report on the draft Bill, so let me quote the Governments response, which sums the issue up well:
We agree that the designation of MCZs should be based on the best scientific evidence, and this should take account of factors such as representivity, uniqueness, vulnerability and sensitivity, but we need to avoid having a strict set of criteria which requires Ministers to designate MCZs purely on the basis of scientific considerations. In addition this should be an opportunity for stakeholders
all the stakeholders that hon. Members have referred to
to suggest areas that are of particular importance to them.
We expect the regional projects
the four that we have talked about, one of the most advanced of which, the Finding Sanctuary project, is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and is doing fantastic work
to take account of the socio-economic value of different areas and,
this is the important thing,
potential synergies between environmental protection and economic activities, to ensure that the MPA network achieves its ecological goals in a way that minimises socio-economic costs,
which I think we would all want,
and maximises the benefits. For representative habitats and species we expect there to be scope to make choices between equally suitable potential sites.
What underpins this is the science, the special nature of the sites.

Linda Gilroy: Does my hon. Friend nevertheless understand the point made by many of the organisations he has just mentioned? They worry that as set out, the Bill will have the same result as the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981: only three small sites have been designated in 25 years. That is the point made by the hon. Member for Newbury. Can my hon. Friend tell those of us who share those worries to some degree how many marine conservation zones he would expect to see come about in the next five years?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I can tell my good and hon. Friend that we intend to bring forward not just individual MCZs but our proposals for a proper, ecologically coherent network by 2012. We said that on the record in the other place. We have said it in guidance and we will continue to say it. We want the momentum behind this to continue, so that we do not simply have individual sites but sites where species can spawn and reproduce. With climate change they can move from site to site and so on. I could go further.
Several hon. Membersrose

Huw Irranca-Davies: I will give way in a moment but I want to finish on one further sentence from the Governments response:
For areas containing particularly rare, threatened or otherwise important species or habitats, we would expect ecological considerations to carry greater weight.
So depending on the sensitivity and fragility, where it is not possible to have replicated sites and there are only one or two sites, we would expect the ecology to carry greater weight. However, in response to the points made about the balance, where choices can be made the socio-economics should be taken into account.

Andrew George: A moment ago the Minister mentioned Finding Sanctuary, whose representatives I have met on a couple of occasions. It is a project partly or wholly funded by DEFRA to work with local environmental organisations and to talk to other stakeholders about introducing proposals for the future designation of marine conservation zones or a zone around the coast of the south-west in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. In doing so, it is engaging with the socio-economic considerations at the stage of identifying the site. I am becoming slightly confused as to whether the proposals themselves, as being introduced under an initiative that the Government clearly support, have integrated the consideration of socio-economic considerations at the very earliest stage. When the project brings forward its own proposals, will further socio-economic considerations be brought to bear at that stage?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Finding Sanctuary is the most progressed of all these projects. The critical thing with Finding Sanctuary has been how well it has done in engaging a wide variety of stakeholders with different interests and getting them together. It does not discuss how it brings forward this ecologically coherent zone in its area until it has the science in front of it. That science will be put to it by a scientific panel, and then it will have to engage with us in some detailed and difficult choices.
I want to return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton about the Wildlife and Countryside Act. I understand her concern about our not delivering in that regard. Apart from our commitment to introducing this ecologically coherent network by 2012, the key difference between the Wildlife and Countryside Act and this Bill is that the latter imposes a statutory duty to designate zones, and a duty on the Secretary of State to get on with it and contribute to this network. Anybody who tries to resile from that will see that the Bill says that we will do it, and have a duty to do it. I challenge anybody who follows me to say that we will not do so. There are other issues, but I will turn to those in a moment.

Linda Gilroy: I think it fair to say that that is a significant reassurance. Can the Minister, without giving a figure, give some sense that there will be more than three small sites? We have already mentioned Lyme bay, Carmarthen, the areas in Cardigan bay, Lundy island and the sites off my own constituency for starters. Can he say something a little more robust about what he expects to happen in, say, the next five years?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, I can, and I am glad to see the support generally in the Committee for making the right decisions in the right areas. I hope that that view is shared more widely in Parliament, because we will undoubtedly bring forward other sites similar to Lyme bay. We cannot get away from that fact. We have sites that are so fragile, special and irreplaceable that they will have to be protected to that degree. There will be sites that will, in effect, be highly restricted. We had a debate in the other place on highly protected areas. The Bill provides the power to deal with a range of issues, including that level of protection, but let us not let that detract from the Governments other obligations that tie in to the marine conservation zone network. Not least of those are our obligations under the habitats directives to bring forward special protection areas and special areas of conservation. I hope to be the Minister who introduces such proposals, which will form part of this approach, very soon. There will be overlaps with marine conservation zones, and there will be difficult decisions to take. However, where we have special sites, they will have to have a special level of protection as well.

Martin Salter: Those of us who might see the inclusion of phraseology such as socio-economic factors as a Trojan horse and an excuse not to designate marine conservation zones can take great comfort and reassurance from the Ministers words. May I press him further? My name is attached to the amendment we are discussing. I am minded to vote with the Government, but I could be persuaded not to. I was encouraged when he quoted the very good response of the Joint Committee on this point. It said that the designation decision would be based on the best scientific factors. That is excellent, but that will not appear in the Bill and that is really the thrust of the amendment from the hon. Member for Newbury. The Minister may need to take some advice on this, but could the wording that is on the record as the Governments response and view be built into guidance to reassure us all? If so, I suggest to the Minister that we would then have earned our corn this afternoon.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes indeed. We have brought out a fair degree of guidance already, but if we can go further we would certainly be minded to do so. It is important to provide clarity and certainty for people, so that they know that we mean it when we say we are going to bring forward marine conservation zones. There is going to be a variety of MCZs. There will be ones that replicate what goes on in other zones. They will be able not only to protect on an individual site basis, but to allow for the replenishment and regeneration of species, and to have that network. I am more than happy to take that point away and look at how we can strengthen the guidance we have already introduced; but I think I can also turn to the amendments and give some clarification.

Linda Gilroy: Before the Minister does that, can he continue with the theme that he outlinedthat there is a duty in the Bill that did not exist in the Wildlife and Countryside Act? Does that therefore mean that if there were grounds to suggest that too few sites coming forward and they were too thin, that would be judicially reviewable?

Huw Irranca-Davies: May I come back to my hon. Friend on that in a moment while I seek some inspiration? I will not forget the point and will return to it.
Let me turn to the nitty-gritty of the amendments. Amendment 15 would ensure that MCZs are designated on scientific criteria alone, with the socio-economic consequences of site designations being considered only when there is a choice of two or more MCZ locations of equal scientific value. The Government consider that existing conservation legislation has become a constraint on our ambition for marine conservation. It does not give us the scope to do all that we want to do, which is to create an ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas. So the Bill in its current format, including clause 117, provides the tools for achieving an ecologically coherent network. That network will include MCZs designated under the Bill, European and Ramsar sites and sites of special scientific interest. Most importantlymy hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton has just referred to this issuethe Bill will place a duty on Ministers to designate MCZs so as to contribute to this ecologically coherent network. That will put in place a network that works best for conservation based on science and, where appropriate, socio-economic needs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West rightly pointed out that the original draft of the Bill stated that we shall take socio-economic factors into account. But MCZs are differentthey are the jewels. There maynot shallbe occasions when we take those factors into account. However, site designations will be based fundamentally on scientific evidence. Science is the fundamental and first consideration when sites are proposed. We expect that on a number of sites the need for conservation will be clear, and such sites will be designated to provide the required protection.
It is also clear to me, however, that the best protection will also be achieved through consensus, and this is where stakeholder engagement comes in. We must be able to take into account, when relevant, the impact of designating MCZs on peoples lives and livelihoods. That will be crucial in assessing the longer-term effects of MCZ designations and our wider renewable energy targets. For example, when a representative site is designated, the Secretary of State will often have more choice regarding potential locations, and a decision could therefore be made that takes into account socio-economics.
Let me turns this on its head. Socio-economics are often considered in opposition to science and conservationas a consideration undermining conservation but in some cases, socio-economics will help and encourage designations. For example, Blakeney Point, on the north Norfolk coast, has a large seal populationabout 500that, in its own terms, is important. However, it is also vital to the local tourist industry. The science might suggest that such an area could benefit from designation as an MCZ, and the socio-economics might point in the same direction for the long-term stability of the tourism industry. They could really underpin the designation. Like other hon. Members, I do not want to pre-empt any decisions on regional work carried out around the coastline, but it is important to make the point that we do not want to lose the ability to factor in such positive socio-economic considerations. I repeat that the Government, with the help of the Committee, are determined to make a step change in the protection of the marine environment. That is why we placed the duty on Ministers to designate these MCZs. We believe that the approach in the Bill is the right one, so I ask the hon. Member for Newbury not to press amendment 15.
Amendment 16 highlights the value of the new MMO and the importance of taking account of social and economic factors, where appropriate, in decisions to designate MCZs. I share the sentiments behind the amendment, but the Bill already achieves its desired effect. The power to take account of social and economic factors when considering whether to designate MCZs will enable us to achieve our conservation objectives in ways that minimise the impact on sea users and maximise synergies, where they exist.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West mentioned recreational sea angling and MCZs. I can see MCZs and socio-economic interests working positively together in that respect, because in many cases MCZs will benefit anglers by providing new or improved opportunities to pursue their sport in a way that does not impact on the biodiversity of the flora and fauna; they can co-exist. Part of the essence of what we are considering is areas where those uses are compatible.

Martin Salter: Recreational sea anglers will be delighted with the assurance that we now have on the record from the Minister that it is not the intention of the Department or the Bill to exclude in almost all cases recreational sea anglers from MCZs. Will the Minister reflect further on the point raised on Second Reading that the presence of recreational sea anglers in MCZs will in itself be of great use in enforcing those MCZs and reporting on other activity that is considerably less welcome?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I will indeed reflect on that point, because one of the thrusts of the Bill is about sharing the ownership of protecting our marine environment. It will not be a case of the man or woman in Whitehall drawing an arbitrary list of lines on a map and saying, This is where the science leads us. It will be a case of getting local communities of stakeholders together in the same way as the four regional projects and saying, Here is the science. Work with it. We have to protect this environment properly for the long-term future. There are players who may well have a part in the long-term management by assisting in that long-term process.
Socio-economics will be taken into account in the management of MCZs after designation, but that is only one of the ways in which we will take that point into account. The designation process must consider the onward management of a site. That is what it is all about.

Andrew George: On that point, will the Minister clarify what is likely to happen following designation both within and beyond the six-mile limit? Presuming that the MCZs will be designated within UK territorial waters, let us say, for example, that one of the sites that the MMO is keen to designate is a deep seabed area. I am thinking of the coast off Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, which are part of my constituency. As the Minister knows, the seabed is as accessible to foreign fishing vessels as it is to UK fishing vessels. With regard to taking into account the socio-economic consequences of designation, I presumethis relates to a wider debate on the future of the common fisheries policythat the Minister acknowledges that it would clearly be inappropriate to tie the hands of UK fishermen, unless the UK Government can achieve an agreement either in Europe or bilaterally with all the fishing nations that have access to that seabed in order to avoid a socio-economic impact on coastal communities. I am talking about a failure to provide any kind of protection, because other vessels were getting in there to damage the seabed.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I think that we are now pushing at an open door in relation to CFP reform, which is long overdue and needs fundamentally to be done. We also have the existing obligations under the European habitats directive and what we are doing under other European regulations as well. We are pushing at an open door, I believe, but he is right and I will return to the issue in a later discussion. We do not want to see MCZs purely in the inshore outer six miles or even in the outer 12. We want to see them in all those areas in territorial waters that are most special and require protection. I will return to that, because it is an important matter.
Not all MCZs will be vulnerable to fishing activities, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, but where the conservation objectives for an MCZ that is located in waters beyond six nautical miles depend on the introduction of fisheries restrictions, the Government will use I have phrased this in civil servant speak, but it is very good civil servant speak that I can understand when I sit down with peopletheir best endeavours to seek the agreement of other member states. As I have said, we are pushing an open door. The European Union, the Commissioner and others are watching to see what we do. Banging together fisheries and marine environment has to be part of the long-term way forward both for the CFP and generally.
We will use our best endeavours to seek the agreement of other member states to mergers through the CFP. In six-to-12 nautical mile zones, that will be through negotiation with the Commission and affected member states, so that domestic legislation under the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 can be extended to foreign vessels, as the hon. Gentleman has discussed. Beyond 12 nautical miles, agreement for a merger under the CFP will ultimately need to be reached through the Council of Fisheries Ministers. There is almost a ranking of difficulty, but all those things are achievable, and we certainly intend to do that, because it would not be right if we simply tried to get the low-hanging fruit. We need to ensure that MCZs are designated, where appropriate, based on scientific evidence.
Coming back to amendment 16, clause 119(4) already requires Ministers to consult any persons whom they think are
likely to be interested in, or affected by, the making of
an order to designate MCZs. That would involve consultation on not only the social and economic implications of designation, but all relevant issues. It is inconceivable that the MMO would not fall within that definition given its planning, licensing and enforcement functions under the Bill, so I reassure hon. Members that Ministers are obliged to consult the MMO. That is in addition to the advice that Ministers can expect to receive from a range of people and organisations with interests in the sea. I am sure that, as we have heard today, we can rely on all of them keenly promoting all the benefitssocial, economic and environmentalof what they do. Ministers will not be short of advice on any aspect of the consequences of designation. I therefore suggest that the amendment is unnecessary, and I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Newbury were to withdraw it. With those comments, I hope that hon. Members can see that there is a good way forward in the Bill.

Richard Benyon: We have had a very useful debate, which has, if nothing else, clarified the Governments intentions and how they see the system working. The Minister has proved himself to be an optimist, this afternoon, in believing that each tier of difficulty is achievable, and so we must wish him well. He is also optimistic in that he hopes to be the Minister who enacts the designations. I have news for himso do Ibut that is a discussion for another occasion.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton rightly teased a very important point out of the Minister about the level of ambition regarding marine conservation zones. On Second Reading, I deliberately made the point that we should not go down the path that some have tried to persuade us to go down of saying that our ambition relates to a certain percentage of the seas, because that would allow a path of least resistance that might result in the designation of relatively benign and uncontroversial areas of the sea in order to achieve a headline figure. Let us face it, many controversial decisions will have to be taken, although much of that controversy will be based on perception rather than reality. Local communities will say, We are being impoverished; our fishing and tourism industries are being affected by the designation, but in most cases those perceptions will be groundless.
It is important to stick hard and fast to the principle that designation will be based on science. What I have sought to do in these amendments is to tease out from the Government a process by which we will get to that point. We have established that that process will be conducted, first, on the basis of sound science, and then socio-economic factors can be considered. As the hon. Member for Reading, West has pointed out, very often those two factors will be entirely compatible; in fact, they will mutually enhance each other.
I take the point raised by the hon. Member for Reading, West about sea anglers being an asset by reporting what is going on. There will not be a line on the map or any buoys or markers to show where these zones start and finish. The only people who will know them are those people who know those waters and that locality. We will be relying, to large measure, on such people.
Where we are yet to make progress is on the point that I raised with amendment 15 regarding the lack of compatibility with other regions going through the same process. I have yet to hear from the Minister why there is a difference in wording and in approach between what we are trying to achieve and what the Scottish Parliament is trying to achieve in the Scottish Marine Bill.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Although I spoke at great length

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming

Greg Pope: When we suspended the Minister was in mid-intervention.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed. To clarify, my intervention was to deal with the issue of Scotland and why it has a slightly different way forward. We have worked with Scotland and the other devolved administrations on the UK Bill throughout the process. Scottish Ministers know how the UK Bill works and have decided, after consultation in Scotland, that a different approach is more appropriate for their own Bill. Nevertheless, as Scotland is responsible for the implementation of both its own Bill for inshore waters and the UK Bill in offshore waters, they and we have the opportunity to ensure consistency between inshore and offshore. Nothing in the Bill prevents that and both Bills can support an ecologically coherent network of protected areas.
Let me clarify. The Scottish Bill considers only socio-economics where there are two areas of equal ecological value. That reflects the consultation carried out and it is for the Scottish Government to take that forward. It is important to look within this Bill at the whole suite of provisions to make a valid comparison. While the scope to consider socio-economics is more limited in the Scottish Bill, there is, on the other hand, no duty in that Bill to designate marine protected areas in the first place.

Greg Pope: Order. Before we go any further, some of the interventions have been slightly longer than Standing Orders provide for. Brevity is the soul of wit and also the soul of interventions. I would gently remind the Committee of that.

Richard Benyon: I think the Minister just said that under the Scottish Bill there will be no duty to designate but we do have a duty.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed.

Richard Benyon: The Minister is nodding his assurance. I believe the duties concerning MCZs are set out in clause 123. That is helpful. I cannot imagine that there would be a huge difference between the two countries. Though our approach differs in various ways, we ultimately want to achieve the same thing. I am satisfied about that.
I spoke earlier about my concerns about Ministers or authorities being able to follow the path of least resistance. It is important that the Bill is constructed in a way to make that almost impossible, because people have come at it in the right process. The hon. Member for St. Ives spoke at the beginning about the programme of protection. I do believe that process is important. We have set out in this debate a process that we can all work with. A point was made by the hon. Member for Reading, West that if we all dance on the head of a pin, the perfect could become the enemy of the good. That is a real mangle of clichĂ(c)s. I understand the point he was making

Martin Salter: Slightly more eloquently.

Richard Benyon: that if we try too hard to tie the legislation down to being too prescriptive we could end up not trying to achieve what we were trying to achieve in the first place. With that, I am prepared to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Richard Benyon: I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 117, page 79, line 14, at end add
(9) The Secretary of State must provide indicative guidance on the types of features to be protected and the level of protection that would normally be applied to each feature..

This amendment aims to establish the different types of features likely to be protected within MCZs, and what restrictions and conditions they will attract i.e. what types of sustainable developments can or cannot be built on or near various features.
This debate leads seamlessly on from what we have just been talking about because what we hope to establish are the different types of features likely to be protected within MCZs and what restrictions and conditions they will attract. That means, what type of sustainable developments can or cannot be built on or near various features. The level of protection and, therefore, conditions and restrictions within MCZs will inevitably be largely feature-driven. A feature-led approach is sensible, because it will deliver appropriate and proportionate protection. The renewable energy sector has some concerns that essential energy infrastructure will be precluded from being built across large areas of the marine environment. As has already been said, one of the greatest environmental threats that we face is climate change. A balance is needed between marine conservation and the development of sustainable energy to ensure continued security of the UKs energy supplies and the mitigation of climate change.
Guidance providing indicative information on the types of features to be protected and the likely conditions and restrictions that might normally apply is vital for two main reasonsfirst, to assuage the industrys concerns and to reassure NGOs and conservation bodies that the appropriate level of protection will be applied, and, secondly, to assist the statutory consulteesinterest groups, including developers and the wider general publicin assessing the likely impact of a marine conservation zone on existing or proposed activities. Such guidance would not be preclusive and should be provided on an indicative basis only, as a guide that recognises that individual management plans will vary depending on the unique circumstances of each MCZ.
The amendment would compel the Secretary of State to provide guidance on an important matter. I also hope that the Minister will give examples of the type of features and the likely level of protection, so that members of the Committee can better understand how MCZs might work in practice.

Andrew George: I rise in support of the amendment. There are good reasons why clear advice is required on both the designation and the purpose of the designation. What we heard earlier, particularly in relation to amendment 15, gave rise to questions not only about the socio-economics, but also about the types of protection required and the different types of economic activity that might take place.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshirea beautiful constituencymade a point about the impact of scallop dredging on flora and fauna on the seabed. If fishing gear is dragged on the seabed, whether it be scallop dredgers, beam trawlers or other methods, particularly these days when the power of such vessels is significantly greater than it was 20 to 30 years ago, the impact on the seabed is substantial. The matter is a topic of hot debate between not only conservationists and fishermen, but also betweenthis is my main pointdifferent strands of the fishing industry.
Gear conflict can occur in the 12-mile zone, where scallop dredging, for instance, can often be in conflict with low-impact fishing techniques, such as inshore crabbing and other activities. In the experience of fishermen to whom I have spoken, such fishing activities are significantly affected by activities such as scallop dredging. Inshore crabbers often find that the productivity of the ground where they ply their trade is affected after scallop dredgers have passed through several times. Inshore crabbers are very selective: they take only those crabs that have reached a level of maturity that can be landed and throw back the juveniles to continue livingit is not as if these crabs suffer the bends and cannot survive afterwards. They return to their habitat and continue living. So it is a selective method of fishing.
Often those in the inshore crabbing industrycertainly in my part of the world fish sustainably in the sense that they are co-fishermen. Their boats are only powerful enough to go out in relatively mild conditionscertainly not in treacherous conditions, although some take the risk from time to timeand they will only steam out to about 5 or 6 miles from their cove. It is vital for these crab fishermen, who work together, to maintain a sustainable industry. The purpose is not to take too much, because the next generation of fishermen will want a sustainable stock within catching distance of the cove. However, scallop dredgers clearly have an impact on that.
The conflict between scallop dredging and inshore crabbing has a significance in many other areas of marine conservation and in other conflicts between different fishing activities. The hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire mentioned the need to conserve certain species of cetaceans. There is a potential conflict between declining numbers of, for example, bottlenose dolphins and the activities of fishermen who drop gill nets and fixed gear in inshore waters. That is an issue of hot debate around the UK coastline. Bottlenose dolphins, which are found off the south-west and Cornish coast, are now small in number, despite having been established over many hundreds of years. To lose one or two of those bottlenose dolphins would be significant. If the Secretary of State sought to protect a particular species, he would need to introduce a particular measure to do so. So there is an importance in that sense.
The hon. Member for Newbury was right about the importance of requiring the Secretary of State to establish the different features likely to be protected within the MCZs, and to be clear about what restrictions and conditions will be applied and about the types of sustainable developments that could be built on, or near, these various features. I shall not list any of the other examples. My point is that some features deserve pure conservation. Some activities can be permitted that still allow those features to be protected that the Secretary of State recognises as deserving. That is where the balance between socio-economics and conservation can be drawn, and, at that point, to protect those important features the Secretary of State is required to be clear about the kinds of economic activity that can take place in certain circumstances, which I hope are preserved by the measure.

Ann McKechin: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pope. As we debate this afternoon, we can all agree that our seas are a varied and changing habitat and that our understanding of them is changing rapidly. One aspect is the increasing effects of climate change on our seas. For example, the temperature off the west coast of Scotland has increased substantially over the past few years and, as yet, we are unsure of the exact causes. Is it a localised effect or related to the Atlantic drift? Only time and further research will tell.
Our network of marine protected areas will have to include a range of protection levels dependent upon individual conservation objectives for the area and the sensitivity of the features being protected. We cannot give a blanket indication of the levels of protection. It is not as simple as saying that a certain feature will always need a given type of protection regardless of where it arises in our seas. Sites with similar features may have different objectives: we may want to protect an eelgrass bed in one place as it is and to allow one to recover in another place. Thus, the protection required would be different and so it should be on a case-by-case basis. Trying to predict all the restrictions for all the activities for all the habitats and objectives would be disproportionate and not really helpful.
I understand the aim behind the amendment of the hon. Member for Newbury. I appreciate the importance for all those with an interest in the sea, particularly for industries such as the renewables industry, of having the clearest picture possible of the future shape and impact of our network. I am also aware that many renewable companies are small and it is important that we help them to know the costs of what, in many cases, is a high-risk venture. Several elements of the Bill, primarily the whole of part 3 on marine planning, aim at giving precisely such a steer for the first time,.
Part 5 will also add clarity. It sets out the types of features to be protected under clause 117, stating:
marine flora or fauna;...marine habitats or types of marine habitat;...features of geological or geomorphological interest.
Those may be rare or threatened or representative species or habitats. Although it is covered in the Bill, it may be helpful for me to expand with some examples. Representative sites such as mudflats, which provide feeding grounds for animals and are vital for nutrient recycling, are an example of the types of habitat or species that we may want to protect. Species may include rarities such as the sunset cup coral and the pink sea fan.
We may also designate breeding grounds as marine conservation zones. For vulnerable species, such as sharks, skates and rays, seasonal restrictions could apply during the breeding season. Designating orders themselves, and any associated byelaws, will add further case-by-case clarity on what conservation objectives have been set and about specific restrictions in place. That will enable people to take a view on whether a possible development could impact on an MCZ and on whether it would be commercially viable.
None of that should come as a surprise. Stakeholders who engage in the regional projects that we are setting up will not only have early warning of how activities are likely to be regulated, but a hand in determining what those regulations are. I do not want to give the Committee the impression that MCZs will always be in opposition to industryfar from it. As we heard today, activities within an MCZ will depend upon the conservation objectives. Many will be able to co-exist in certain areas without any difficulty. There may even be instances, and renewable energy installations seem a possible candidate, where industry and MCZs can be mutually supportive over the long term. I urge the Committee to resist the amendment. The Bill will provide clarity about what people may do and where, both in the short term and in the long term. The amendment would commit us to doing more than we could reasonably achieve.

Andrew George: A moment ago, the Minister mentioned, as one of her examples, the pink sea fan, which is extremely slow to grow and can live for up to 100 years. It is found in rocky reef habitats as well as in mud beds. Given that such sea flora are extremely slow to grow, surely it is appropriate that an amendment such as this one be made. If one of the purposes of the Bill is to protect particularly vulnerable marine flora such as the slow-growing pink sea fan, that should be made clear by the Secretary of State. It should also be made clear that every effort must be made to ensure that there is not a single trawl within a zone that would damage a very vulnerable marine flora.

Ann McKechin: There will be a spectrum of different protections in each conservation zone. As the hon. Gentleman said, some flora and fauna will require very high levels of protection in the zone concerned. We want to ensure that those flora and fauna are clearly identified as soon as is reasonably possible. However, we also want flexibility, so that if there is a change in the scientific evidence or researchthere is research in our seas at all timesthe appropriate authorities can react to that change. There must be a degree of flexibility. That is why we are trying to build that flexibility into the Bill, so that the regulations are proportionate, based on hard scientific evidence and flexible, because we know that our seas are changing and that we have to alter restrictions to fit that change. If we gave a long list in the Bill itself, we would lack the flexibility that we need if we want a comprehensive approach to the protection of our seas. At the same time, including such a long list would work against the partnership approach that we are trying to create in our planning, whereby we involve the stakeholders and get them to come together to work out a series of controls appropriate to each area.

Richard Benyon: The Ministers response has clarified a number of points. The hon. Member for St. Ives made an important point in talking about Carmarthen bay. We are all aware of some of the tragic loss of environment in that particular

Andrew George: Cardigan bay.

Richard Benyon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for correcting me. In Cardigan bay, there has been an appalling depletion of the marine environment due to certain activities related to shellfish. We must remember that in the context of this debate.
I hope that what we can draw out through this amendment and others is an understanding that certain MCZs will differ vastly even within themselves. The analogy given to me by Lord Taylor of Holbeach in our discussions on the Bill is a very good one. He asked me to imagine an MCZ the size of DevonI can feel two eyes boring into the back of my head as I say thisin the sea. There would be an area within that MCZ that is, for example, Dartmoor and another that is Exmoor. In the area that is Dartmoor, there could be a particularly important area of coral reef. The area that is Exmoor could be particularly important as a spawning ground. The remainder of the MCZ could have a completely different designation. All those areas require complex management objectives to be clearly set out in a way that all interested parties can understand and adhere to.
By tabling the amendment, I was seeking to create, through guidance, greater understanding of what the indicative features were. I think that the Minister has given me sufficient assurance about that, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Roger Williams: I remember that, on Second Reading, the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) proposed that marine conservation zones should be designated not only according to the words in the Bill relating to marine flora and fauna, types of marine habitats and features of geological or geomorphological interest, but on the basis of seascapes. He looked at that from the angle of chairman of the all-party group on areas of outstanding natural beauty. He represents the Gower, which is an area of outstanding natural beauty in its own right. I believe that the Ministers uncle at one time represented that area in the House.
It is often the seascape that the public cherish most about the sea. Indeed, the European landscape convention, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, defines a seascape as
an area of sea, coastline and land, as perceived by people, whose character results from the actions and interactions of land and sea, by natural and/or human factors.
The constituency of the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire is an example of an area where the land is designated as a national park. There is sometimes a heritage coastline or an area of outstanding national beauty, and the sea is an important part of that designation.
Several people have proposed that we add another qualifying reason to those set out for the designation of marine conservation zones: the quality of the seascape itself, especially when it is associated with a coastline that has already been designated. I know that we have not tabled an amendment to that effect, but has the Minister reacted to the debate on Second Reading? Might an amendment on Report produce an encouraging response?

Andrew George: I want to intervene briefly as we are having a brief stand part debate. As I pointed out on Second Reading, the last subsection of the clause refers to the remains of
any vessel, aircraft or marine installation...which are of historic or archaeological interest.
Are those words there simply to pad the legislation? There is tremendous interest in important historic features for many reasons, and particularly from those who want to protect war graves, which are often on the seabed where vessels have gone down following battles around the UK coast. However, I do not see any mechanism in the Bill whereby those can be identified, communicated to the MMO and given the proper protection, so perhaps the Minister could reassure me on that. I can see how environmental organisations such as Natural England will be able to advise the MMO on designation, but I do not see a clear structure whereby organisations concerned with marine archaeology or the protection of war graves at sea could ensure that their concerns are communicated, too.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I was originally from the Gower, where my uncle was MP. I now live in Maesteg and my local beach is Aberavon. I happen to think that the Gower coast and the marine environment off the Gower is a superb example of excellence. My boys do surf life-saving at Aberavon; it has some of the best surfing in Wales and the most glorious beach as a backdrop. However, I also think that the two train lines that run from the Port Talbot steelworks form another iconic seascape.
The problem is defining seascape. It is almost like asking What is art?. I know what it is, because I know what I like. Seascape is important to us. As has been said, we published a definition of seascape in the high-level objectives, which refers to
An area of sea, coastline and land whose character results from the actions and interactions of land with sea by natural and/or human factors.
The problem is where to stop. Let me elucidate.
The question was discussed at length in the other place and raised on Second Reading. I assure the Committee that the Bill allows for the protection of seascapes through marine planning and licensing provisions. However, I do not want to include specific provision for protection of the seascape in part 5, which deals with nature conservation. We are only starting to understand what is meant by seascape. We do not yet have a well-understood and agreed definition, particularly one that would allow us to identify seascapes that deserved special protection. Would it be Port Talbot, with those iconic towers in the background and surfing on the beach or would it be the Gower, with Brandy cove, Fox Hole, Caswell bay and Rhossili? Or would it be both? That is why I do not want to include it in part 5.
Our ideas on the subject will evolve over time, as we come to understand more, so it is vital that we do not enshrine early ideas in legislation. However, there are many projects looking into the nature of seascapes. The Government take the issue seriously. We are not there yet, but I assure the Committee that we want to make progress. For example, English Heritage is considering the characteristics of historical landscape in those parts of the marine environment where aggregate dredging takes place, and Natural England recognises the need to develop a seascape characterisation of the English coastline in its European landscape convention action plan.
I can show how important a subject it is, but one that is not appropriate here, by quoting a pertinent point made by Lord Greenaway. He stated:
This is much too broad, at this stage. I appreciate that the Government are looking at this in the longer term, but seascapes are something that we did not look at in the pre-legislative scrutiny committee and it is too early to get too involved in this at this moment in time.[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 May 2009; Vol. 710, c. 1020.]

Hugo Swire: I understand that only one coastline in the United Kingdom has received UNESCO world heritage site statusthe Jurassic and Triassic coastline from Dorset to Devon. Why cannot that be taken into account in the Bill? Surely if it is good enough for UNESCO, it is good enough for the Government.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed. As we bring forward licensing and development proposals; as we consider the interplay between the coast and the marine environment, which is what the Bill is about; as we look at the development of coastal paths, which we will come to later; and as we consider the development of the marine planning system, only then will interested bodies such as national parks and consortiums engaged with special areas of designation, become involved and factor that in. However, we are talking predominantly about marine conservation per se.
I want to speak briefly about heritage, which was the subject of a good discussion in the other place. The Government remain committed to heritage protection legislation. We require specific and comprehensive heritage protection. We require one Bill to deal with terrestrial and marine heritage, but we do not have that at the moment. I do not want to widen the scope of this Bill, as I wish to maintain our focus on the natural environment in part 5. However, we have worked closely with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that the Bill will complement future heritage protection legislation, should there be an opportunity.
We published the high-level marine objectives on 20 April. That document talks specifically about the marine environments natural and cultural heritage. The high-level objectives will underpin the development of the marine policy statement, which will then be applied in more detail through marine plans.
The Government also included two amendments on Report in the other place to clarify that historic and archaeological characteristics should be considered in the marine planning process, and that the Secretary of State may take those considerations into account when designating MCZs. Those amendments were warmly welcomed in the other place as affording the right level of protection in the Bill. I think that we all agree that more comprehensive protection of the cultural marine heritage is required, and we look longingly to see a heritage protection Bill being brought forward as soon as parliamentary time allows. Meanwhile, we have reached a very good conclusion on heritage in this Bill, and I am very thankful to Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Lord Davies of Oldham and other peers for all their hard work on this issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 117 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 118

Further provision as to orders designating MCZs

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Jones: I am sure that the Minister can assist the Committee on a practical point about clause 118(1), which provides:
An order under section 116 must identify the boundaries of the area designated
as a marine conservation zone. Presumably, the designation, so far as the order is concerned, will be by means of a map or plan attached to the order. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury pointed out earlier, MCZs might be enormous areas of sea, and it would be helpful if the Minister were to indicate how those areas will be designated and defined, if at all, on the water.
This matter is of some importance given that MCZs will, in many cases, be contiguous, and it may be of further importance given that, in some cases, they may be designated by different designating authorities. I have in mind the Dee estuary, where the authority would be Welsh Ministers on one side but not on the other, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne would make a similar, forceful point regarding the Severn estuary. It would be helpful if the Minister explained how that practical issue of designation will be tackled once the Bill has been enacted.

Nick Ainger: Following on from that point, I tabled an amendment to an earlier clause, which we have passed now. My amendment was not selected because I was too late, and I assure you that I am not going back to that debate, Mr. Pope. Following on from the point of the hon. Member for Clwyd, West about estuaries that have different authorities, particularly around the Welsh border, such as the Dee and Severn estuaries, I should like to know whether the different planning authorities will be required to produce a joint plan. I know that the Government have tabled a relevant amendment. It is pointless to have different regulation in estuaries such as the Dee, although we have had that problem in the past, particularly in relation to cockle fisheries. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on that in his response.

Hugo Swire: I want to return to something that we discussed earlier, which also relates to this clauseplaces of refuge. Designating and identifying them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West said, is one thing, particularly if they are areas the size of Devon, but the Committee also needs to know what priorities there are within them. In the United Kingdom system, the Marine Safety Act 2003 provides powers of intervention and direction to the Secretary of States representative for maritime salvage and intervention, working with the Maritime and Coastguard Agencys counter-pollution and response branch. The SOSREP directs vessels to places of refuge when he judges it appropriate. Anywhere around the UK's coast could be a place of refuge, and we consider it unwise pre-emptively to rule anywhere in or out.
The Minister knows that EU member coastal states should be required to take measures to receive ships in distress in ports of refuge. That has been raised through the Erika II package and through the Castor and Prestige incidents, for example. How will that fit in with marine policy statements or marine conservation zones, particularly as most MCZs are likely to be designated before marine planning takes place? Will the need to find a place of refuge always overrule anything in this legislation? In other words, should it have been possible to beach the Napoli at a world heritage site or adjacent to one, or would that simply have defeated the purpose of the Bill? The marine planning system must be used to clearly identify places of refuge around our coast for ships in distress. That could help to avoid stricken ships being taken to environmentally sensitive areas.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I will try to deal with three different issues, two of which overlap slightly. In another part of the Bill, when we look at marine plans, we will deal in detail with joint or cross-border work in, for example, the Severn, Deeside and Solway firth areas. In the marine planning environment, the Bill provides a number of obligations and incentives to ensure that marine plan authorities co-operate and work together seamlessly. We are actively considering other mechanisms. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire will know from his time as a Wales Office Minister that much of the work that was done between Westminster and Wales was underpinned by concordats and memorandums of understanding, and I fully anticipate that those are probably the sort of mechanisms that will underpin the working relationship between the different Administrations.
With marine conservation zonesa slightly different area to marine planningthere is an obligation on the different areas bringing forward cross-border zones to work together. There cannot be an ecologically coherent network of marine conservation zones in which one area impacts negatively on another. Proposals cannot be introduced in one area that lead to the displacement of activity into another, for example, proposals for the south-west that are to the great benefit of that area but to the great detriment of Cardigan bay, or vice versa. The areas have to work together and the MMO has a role in overseeing, as the projects bringing the marine conservation zones forward are introduced, that they synchronise properly. That is important, and it has to work around the UK. One of the big benefits of the Bill is that it is a UK-wide approach. Even if individual areas introduce marine conservation zones, what we do in Cornwall and Devon has to relate to what is going on in Wales. What we are doing on Deeside and in the north-west has to relate to what we are doing in north Wales, and so on, all around the coast.
I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Clwyd, West was referring to the marking of zones on the water.

David Jones: Indeed.

Huw Irranca-Davies: That is possible; if necessary they can be marked. To be honest, it will not always be necessary to show movement from one zone to another, but when it is important, it can, and I am sure that it will, be done.

Hugo Swire: Will the Minister agree to consult the RNLI should he decide to go down the road of marking out designated areas?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed. It would certainly not be me who decided that an area needed physical markers on the sea, but, if that were the case, I would absolutely expect it to happen and I would expect to engage with stakeholders. One of the fascinating aspects of this role is the technology that is now seen onboard vessels and the extensive science base that shows the mapping of the sea bed. It is quite astonishing to see how that can be used to prevent vessels from going into certain areas.
The hon. Member for East Devon talked about places of refuse. When it comes to saving vessels or human lives, there is an issue of priority but wherever possible we would seek to avoid sensitive areas. This is part of the balance that we are talking about. There are some very difficult decisions. The essence of the Bill is to ensure that, where there are compatible uses we can do that, but where there are not we try to work around it and find alternative locations.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 118 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 119

Consultation before designation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Andrew George: I seek the Ministers reassurance on an issue here that is also relevant to clause 121. It comes back to a theme that I have mentioned before regarding consultation, particularly the requirement for consultation with coastal local authorities, which I do not think is emphasised sufficiently in the Bill, and the extent to which the encouraging words in the Bill can be made more robust or be tested.
Subsection (2) reads:
The appropriate authority must publish notice of its proposal to make the order.
I can see no reason why the Minister is not prepared to go further and state that it must publish notice and one of those locations where the notice must be published is within those coastal local authorities that are adjacent to the site designated in the order.
Subsection (3) reads:
The notice under subsection (2) must... be published in such manner as the appropriate authority thinks is most likely to bring the proposal to the attention of any persons who are likely to be affected by the making of the order.
How does one test the extent to which the appropriate authority has made sure that it has been brought to the attention of any persons? Are they fully aware of the kind of persons and organisations, be they bodies interested in industry, resource recovery, or marine science, such as a dolphin-watching group, that might be appropriate and which perhaps should have been consulted at that stage?
The same question arises on subsection (4), which states:
The appropriate authority must consult any persons who the appropriate authority thinks are likely to be interested in, or affected by, the making of the order.
How does one test the extent to which the appropriate authority has fulfilled its job? There is no mechanism here to ensure that it has. If someone who believes that they should have been consulted wishes to complain or appeal against the manner in which the authority has discharged its duty here, there is no mechanism for them to raise any objection.
I do not want to stray into a debate on clause 121, but the principle applies to its subsections too. I simply want to draw that to the Ministers attention, rather than having a separate debate on that clause. Clause 121(2) states:
The authority may, before making that decision, give to any person the opportunity of... appearing
and so on. There is no reassurance. There is no means of testing or appealing against this. There is no requirement on the authority to go through any robust method of ensuring that its consultation methods are sufficiently comprehensive and robust.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I want to assure the hon. Member for St. Ives that that is the effect of the clause. There is a duty in clause 119(1) for the appropriate authority
to comply with subsections (2) to (9).
That includes, in subsection (2), to
publish notice of its proposal to make the order.
Under subsection (3) it must
(a) be published in such a manner as the appropriate authority thinks is most likely to bring the proposal to the attention of any persons who are likely to be affected by the making of the order;
(b) contain a statement of the terms of the proposed order.
That is the effect of the clause. It has flexibility but places that duty on the appropriate authority. Failure to publish and comply with those requirements will be a failure of that duty. I would not want to have an additional tier of monitoring and double-checking. Anybody not properly consultedwho has not been subject to the publication and distribution of the proposals and so onhas the right to take action. A duty to involve all interested persons is clearly stated.

Andrew George: The Minister has said that there is an opportunity for an aggrieved interested party, who finds out that the order has been made but who has not been consulted, to take action. I can see nowhere in the Bill where action can be taken by an aggrieved party who finds out at the eleventh hour that something is going forward that might damage their interests or an interest they have in marine matters. It would be reassuring to know what action they can take, as it is not clear here.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The ultimate default position, if these duties have not been complied with, is under subsection (10) which says:
If the appropriate authority fails to make the order before the end of the period...anything done by the appropriate authority for the purposes of complying with subsections (2) to (9)...is to be treated as not having been done.
If the appropriate authority fails to engage properly with all the relevant persons who could be affected, subsection (10) says it has not complied with its duty and that proposal does not stand. There is also the option of judicial review. So there are safeguards. The essence of these MCZs, as we described earlier, is based on early engagement, the science being put in front of people, and a wide variety of proper stakeholders. If there is no proper publication, distribution and consultation, there are failsafes within the clause to say that the process falls.

Andrew George: I apologise to hon. Members for becoming rather pedantic. My reading of subsection (10) is that it simply puts a timetable on the process, but the Minister has said that the fall-back position for anyone who feels aggrieved is to pursue the matter through law. All subsection (10) does is put a 12-month deadline for the fulfilment of all the other subsections up to subsection (9).

Huw Irranca-Davies: I can confirm what I just saidthe hon. Gentleman can look back and read through Hansard. I also draw the hon. Gentlemans attention to clause 122, which relates to the amendment, revocation and review of orders designating MCZs, where, if the process has not been properly followed, we can look at either revisiting the amendment process, or at rehearsing the proposal again. That is an important fall-back provision, because it puts the onus on those who bring the MCZs forward to engage all stakeholders properly and not leave anybody out. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 119 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 120

Publication of orders designating MCZs

Richard Benyon: I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 120, page 81, line 23, at end add
(6) The appropriate authority must inform any national representative body of sea users of the publication of orders designating MCZs..
I do not wish to be flippant, but, just for clarity, during the clause stand part debate a moment ago, the Minister referred to areas of refuse, as opposed to areas of refuge; he might wish to correct the record, because I hope that the Bill will avoid areas of refuse.
The amendment seeks to include a sixth subsection to the clause. By placing a duty on appropriate authorities to inform national representative bodies of MCZ designations, the amendment would allow sea users, via bodies such as the British Marine Federation and the Royal Yachting Association, to comment and give feedback on the proposed zones in a timely fashion.
The RYA is a national body for all forms of recreational and competitive boating. It represents dinghy and yacht racing, motor and sail cruising, rigid inflatable boats and sports boats, as well as powerboat racing, windsurfing, inland cruising and personal watercraft. The RYA manages the British sailing team and Great Britain was the top sailing nation in the 2000, 2004 and 2008 Olympic games. The RYA and the BMF are recognised by all Government offices as the negotiating bodies for the activities that they represent. The RYA has over 100,000 personal members, the majority of whom choose to go afloat for purely recreational, non-competitive pleasure on coastal and inland waters. An estimated further 500,000 boat-owners nationwide are members of over 1,500 RYA-affiliated clubs and class associations. That gives an indication of the importance of organisations such as the RYA and why they must be consulted.
As we heard during the previous clause stand part debate, there is unlikely to be any physical designation of MCZs in the sea itself through the use of buoys and such like. National representative bodies need to mark such areas on charts and communicate the locations of MCZs to their members and to local sea users. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether such bodies will be properly consulted, and whether the amendment, which would require them to be consulted, is needed.

Ann McKechin: I fully agree with the sensible intent behind the amendment. We have to make sure that we take every reasonable step to ensure that people who are likely to be affected by an order are made aware of it. Indeed, the issue is already covered by the Bill. I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Newbury to an earlier part of the clause that states that the appropriate authority must publish notice of the making of an order
in such manner as the appropriate authority thinks is most likely to bring the order to the attention of any persons who are likely to be affected by the making of it.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that organisations such as the RYA, which shares his concerns, would certainly be included in that definition.
The clause places a duty on the appropriate authority to do everything it reasonably can to bring an order to the attention of people and organisations likely to be affected. It also requires the appropriate authority to make sure that a copy of the order is available for inspection, and to provide a copy to people who ask for one. The provision is all about transparency and is very important, because protection of MCZs will only be improved when more people are aware of their existence and appreciate what they are for. We have no wish to have people unwittingly contravening orders because we have failed properly to publicise them.
In practice, I anticipate that the appropriate authority will publish the order in an appropriate manner, with notifying organisations likely to be affected by e-mail or letter. Organisations would, I believe, include the RYA, but they are also very likely to include local representative organisations which may, in fact, be more directly affected than some members of the RYA. We do not simply send everything to everyone, which would be a disproportionate burden; we must allow the appropriate authority some discretion to make the judgment based on its experience and expertise of marine matters about who is likely to be affected. In doing so, it has to act reasonably. I believe the clause, as it stands, strikes the right note, and I hope that with the assurances I have given today the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Richard Benyon: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. The words that she has put on the record will provide the necessary reassurance to organisations such as the RYA. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 120 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 121 and 122 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 123

Creation of network of conservation sites

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Ainger: I have been contacted by the Countryside Council for Wales, which is the statutory advisory body for the Welsh Assembly. It has raised a number of issues that I would like to bring to the Committees attention. Unfortunately, in the time given, it was not possible to table an amendment, but I will ask the Minister some questions.
Clause 123 creates the network of conservation sites, but does not state whether any of them will be highly protected sites. The CCW is concerned that some of the sites should be highly protected. It may mean that licensed marine activity should not be allowed in MCZs, and that neither should any fishing of any sort take place. In other words we create, as around Lundy, no-take zones. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me if, within clause 123, those highly protected zones can be created to give the assurance that the CCW is seeking.

Andrew George: I am sure that you, Mr. Pope, will noticeI am sure that the Minister will have noticedthat I put forward amendment 40, which has not been selected. Perhaps it was tabled too late for consideration. The amendment achieves what, I hope, the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire was asking forthat the network should include highly protected sites.
There may be a debate around the extent to which such sites might be designated and what provisions might apply to them. There are a lot of conservation bodiesnot just conservation bodies, but otherswho are concerned that what we may end up with is mediocre protection, which does not give the highest and strictest levels of protection to some of the most fragile, sensitive sites of marine biodiversity. Some are concerned that within the proposed MCZsrather than separate from themwe need sites offering the strictest protection for our most vulnerable wildlife habitats and to allow damaged and degraded areas to recover. Currently, fewer than 0.001 per cent. of the UKs sea areaall of the territorial areais fully protected from all damaging activity. Such a network of highly protected sites should include sites where all extractive and constructive uses are prevented. They could be used for long-term monitoring and benchmarking and act as control areas, unaffected by many human activities, where such levels of protection are required to promote the recovery of green eco-systems. So a case could be made for a higher level of protection within some parts of the proposed MCZs.
The Minister will say that the problem with that proposal is that it would create a two-tier conservation system and degrade the effect of the MCZs. But in my view that is sophistry. It is a debating point. My problem with the argument advanced by the Government in defence of their position is that it does not apply to other areas of regulation. For example, different grades of heritage protection apply to the schedule of ancient monuments, but that does not diminish the protection of areas not given the highest level of protection. It also applies in different areas of planning and the environment. The impact of MCZs will be diminished only if the MMO, and the bodies supporting it, do not have the authority of those with an interest in marine conservation and the impact on the marine environment. That relates partly to the resources that the Government invest in the organisation and the respect that it commands among stakeholders with an interest, from any angle, in marine conservation and the recovery of resources from the seaall those industries with an interest in the marine resource.
I hope that the Minister will reflect on my proposal. No amendment is available on this matter for us to divide on, but given that it is one of the totemic issues for many conservation bodies, we might well return to it on Report. Even though he will have the opportunity to bat it away today, given that no amendment is available on which we can divide, I hope that he will reflect on the matter. He should recognise that such highly protected areas need not be separate from MCZs, but contained within them, which might encourage him to allow them to feature in the Bill.

Huw Irranca-Davies: In respect of the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire, I understand the concerns of the CCW, and I am very pleased to say that Welsh Ministers have already indicated their intention to introduce areas that are more highly protected than others. It is probably a recognition of where we have got to in this Bill that we have a genuine UK joined-up approach. As he will understand, it is up to them to decide where to introduce those proposals, but they have signalled that they intend to do soas do we.
Let me address the points that the hon. Member for St. Ives made. As he recognised, there is no amendment to debate, but this is a good opportunity to explain further. All MCZs will be jewels, as I referred to them earlier, but they will be very different; some will have high levels of protection, whether one wants to call them highly protected areas or simply acknowledge that they will be highly protected. The Government have always been committed to ensuring that the Bill provides the right level of protection for zones, according to the objectives of each zone and the science that underpins them, which we discussed earlier. I have absolutely no doubt that there will be high levels of protection for areas that are particularly fragile or irreplaceable.
Let me make it clear that the Bill fully enables Ministers to designate MCZs with high levels of protection. Moreover, that is recognised in the reporting duty in clause 124(2), which requires Ministers to report to Parliament not only on the number of MCZs, but on the number of MCZs where any licensable marine activity such as fishing or taking animals or plants has been prohibited or significantly restricted. So, it is pretty clear that we expect there to be areas where activities will be prohibited or significantly restricted, because we will have to have a reporting function on that.
I do not want to fix in law a definition of what highly protected means, because including such a term in the Bill would require a definition that would not be right in all cases because of the variety involved. What constitutes a high level of protection in one area will not be high enough in another, or, in contrast, may be too high for another. One size of high-level protection simply does not fit all, and we have recognised that by maintaining flexibility in the Bill to provide the appropriate level of protection in each case, based on the sciencewhatever that level might be. One important issue that was remarked on in the other place is that we do not want to end up with a two-tier system of highly protected MCZsthe Rolls-Royce, as they were described, that everyone strives forand a lower class of MCZs that are not quite as deserving of protection and attention. They will all be an essential part of our network.
I do not want to risk any of that happening, but I will give the hon. Member for St. Ives one assurance, regardless of the fact that we are not debating an amendment. MCZs will include areas that have not only a high level of protection, but a high level of protection where extractive industries, for example, are prohibited. I hope that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire have been reassured by my comments, not least as the Welsh Ministers have already indicated their intention to introduce such proposals.

Nick Ainger: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation but will he finally clarify this point? Is he saying that, of the MCZs or special sites that will form the network, some may be designated as highly protected areasappropriately, given the nature of their environmentunder clause 123?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I understand what my hon. Friend is asking, but there will not be a two-tier system. There will not be a title that says, Here is the Rolls-Royce MCZ, called the HPAor whateverand here is another. This clause, in tandem with clauses 124 and others, allows us to designate highly protected areas where there are such significant restrictions that we will have a duty to report on them and on how they are progressing. The capacity is there to deliver them, but we will not call them a Rolls-Royce or a Mini.

Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, although I do not accept the two-tier argument that he advanced. He drew attention to clause 124(2)(c), which states that the report that has to be written must include
the number of MCZs designated
in which the activities he described
are prohibited or significantly restricted.
He says that the report must contain such information, but the answer in the report may be nil. There is no requirement in the Bill to ensure that such places are designated; there is simply a requirement to report on the number of MCZs in which those activities are restricted. The Minister wanted to reassure me, but I am reassured only that the measure takes us in the right direction. There is no requirement to ensure that such places are designated.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. In an earlier debate, we talked about introducing not only individual MCZs, but an ecologically coherent network based on the available science. I challenge not only myself but any subsequent Minister who reports to the House that they have not designated any highly protected areas to stand in the House and not be laughed down. The intention is clear, and it is clear that we have the capacity. We must now use that framework and get on and do it.

Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister. That last comment is more reassuring than simply pointing me to the measure in the Bill. I may well take the opportunity to discuss the issue after the Committee and during the summer recess with other stakeholders. We may need to come back to the issue on Report.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 123 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 124 and 125 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 126

Duties of public authorities in relation to certain decisions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Ainger: This is another issue that has been brought to my attention by the Countryside Council for Wales, which is concerned that public authorities could grant consent for an activity that could damage an MCZ. It suggests that the same principles and rules that apply to land-based planning decisions should apply to marine planning decisions. In other words, if a public authority were minded to grant a consent that could directly affect and damage an MCZ, it should have to inform either the UK Minister or a Welsh Assembly Minister, as it would when dealing with a departure from an existing structure plan or whatever in land-based planning.
Secondly, the CCW suggests that there should be a power for the Government or the Welsh Assembly Government to call in such applications. I would be grateful for the Ministers comments on those ideas. They have merit, because at the end of the day, we rightly restrict the powers of local planning authorities or national parks that are minded to grant a consent that is in breach of their policies on the ground that it is in the wider public interest. We should apply the same restrictions to any public authority that is minded to grant or permit an activity or development that could damage an MCZ. I would be grateful for the Ministers comments on that proposal.

Huw Irranca-Davies: It may be worth giving an example to illustrate how it might work. Public authorities are defined in clause 316, and mean a Minister of the Crown, a public body or a public office holder. For nature conservation, the phrase encompasses local authorities, Government bodies, Government Departments, the MMO and local planning authorities. A concrete example is that it could be necessary in some circumstances for a public authority to carry out certain specific activities that will not further the conservation objections for a MCZ. If a local authority needed to repair a lighthouse in an MCZ with a high level of protection, the necessary work may not further the conservation objectives for the site in the short term, so it is important that the Bill provides for such circumstances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire raises an important point: what happens if the public authorities fall short or hinder the conservation objectives? We have included provisions in clause 125 to ensure that public authorities are under a duty to carry out their functions in a way that best furthers the conservation objectives for an MCZ. If the statutory conservation body considers that a public body has failed to comply with the duty, clause 128 provides that the statutory conservation body can request an explanation for the failure from that public authority. Whether it is a local authority or somebody making repairs to a lighthouse, they can be pulled up and asked to explain why, in carrying out their work, they did not do their best to protect the interests of the MCZ.

Nick Ainger: I am grateful for the explanation, but it gives me cause for concern, because a local planning authority may be asked to account for a decision but the fact remains that that decision is made and has gone ahead, thereby causing damage to an MCZ. I suggest that before such a decision is implemented, the Welsh Assembly Government, the Scottish Executive or a Government Department should be able, first, to insist that they are notified if there is a departure from conservation objectives and, secondly, to call the decision or application in and hold a public inquiry if they remain concerned. That is the situation under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. There do not seem to be such provisions in this Bill. My concern, and the concern of the Countryside Council for Wales, is that without those provisions, we may see unnecessary damage to MCZs. It is all very well for the planning authority to have to account for its actions, but such a provision, which exists in land-based planning, should apply to marine planning as well. I am not going to push for a Division on the clause, but I suggest that the Minister take the idea away, look at it and bring something back on Report.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 126 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 127

Advice and guidance by conservation bodies

Richard Benyon: I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 127, page 87, line 21, at end insert
(2A) The appropriate statutory conservation body must give advice on the requirements for monitoring the impacts of a permitted activity within a MCZ. The costs of this monitoring should be reasonable and proportionate with respect to the scale, costs and environmental benefits of the project..

This amendment aims to minimise the cost of environmental impact assessment and subsequent monitoring.
This is a short but important amendment. The text is there for hon. Members to see. It aims to minimise the cost of environmental impact assessments and subsequent monitoring. The key sentence is:
The costs of this monitoring should be reasonable and proportionate with respect to the scale, costs and environmental benefits of the project.
One of the marine renewables industrys greatest concerns is the cost of environmental impact assessments and the subsequent monitoring of them, as it could potentially destroy the UKs wave and tidal energy sector. In my opening words this morning, I said that it was important that the Bill stand the test of time. Developing technologies are going to be fundamental and vital in how we progress our approach to climate change and development of renewable energy systems. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) spoke about the situation in Strangford loch. The marine current turbine development in Strangford loch provides a concrete example of the disproportionate costs for small firms, with £4 million attributable to the stipulated environmental monitoring programme for a project with an initial budget of less than £10 million. This is a really important emerging technology. If we constrain that kind of development and technological advance through prohibitive costs we have a problem.

Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point that certainly affects the experimental wave hub project, which the Government are keen to promote off the north coast of my constituency. That highlights the fact that two arms of Government policy are in conflict, but the Government can resolve that conflict by requiring the MMO to co-operate as much as possible in providing information, data and support to any body or industry seeking to provide the necessary data for the environmental impact assessment of the type the hon. Gentleman says is going to be costly. Surely it demonstrates the need for co-operation between one arm of Government and another.

Richard Benyon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and support for what I am seeking to achieve. The amendment is reasonable and would be greatly welcomed by a lot of people seeking to develop emerging technologies that will be important to us in future. I hope that the Minister will recognise that in his remarks, because this is something I feel strongly about and will push, if required, to a vote.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I hope the hon. Gentleman does not push it to a vote because, while the amendment is well intentioned, it might not do what it is intended to do. The approach we have taken with MCZs is based on achieving conservation objectives in a focused and intelligent way. That is what is in the Bill. We want a conservation mechanism that is an easy tool for everyone to work with and, as the hon. Gentleman said, does not impose unnecessary burdens on any sector or interests. I agree with the thrust of the amendment which, as he has just explained, is concerned to ensure that statutory conservation bodies advise on monitoring activities in MCZs and that the costs of such monitoring should be reasonable and proportionate. I do not think that anybody will disagree with that.
Clause 127 outlines the scope of the advisory role of the statutory conservation bodies. It gives the bodies a power, and in some circumstances a duty, to give advice and guidance on a range of matters in relation to MCZs, which could include marine monitoring requirements where appropriate. These bodies also have general powers to offer advice to public authorities and make representations to them. Public authorities would have to take such advice and representations into account when making decisions. I fully expect the conservation bodies to carry out the advisory functions under the Bill, like all their functions, in a reasonable manner without specific requirement in the Bill. The amendment would require that an advance assessment be made of the costs of monitoring requirements, as well as overall project costs and the value of any environmental benefits. That would probably be an impossible obligation for conservation bodies to fulfil in their advisory capacity. It is important that we do not blur the distinction between the responsibilities for giving advice and for making decisionsbetween advisory bodies and those who take the decisions. It is for the licensing authority, rather than conservation bodies, to determine what conditions need to be attached to any licence that they issue.
Licensing authorities, such as the MMO, which will issue marine licences under part 4 of the Bill, will receive advice from conservation bodies, but will also take into account a number of other factors, including socio-economic ones, when determining whether to grant a licence and, if they do, what conditions should be placed on it. That could include environmental monitoring. Any environmental monitoring conditions in a licence granted by a licensing authority should be proportionate to the environmental risks posed by the development, and not proportionate to the total costs of the project.

Richard Benyon: I entirely agree that it needs to be proportionate. Will the Minister tell me where that appears in the Bill? This is important.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I shall indeed return to that point. Monitoring will not always be necessary, but it is likely to be more important for larger developments, those in environmentally sensitive areas and where the impact of experimental technologies is difficult to predict. For example, the MFA has approved three pilot wind and tidal developments in England and Wales, two of which do not have any environmental monitoring conditions attached. The third has limited monitoring conditions because of its location right next to a special area of conservation protected under European habitats legislation.
It is important to recognise, however, that we are not creating a one-way process. Monitoring will often be required, but I want to see a proper two-way dialogue between the authorities and the developers about how best to carry out that monitoring. That will include ensuring that the costs are reasonable. It is a process that often takes place now, as I just illustrated, but I want it to be strengthened and built on in future. We have the capacity to deliver that in the Bill. It is happening on the ground in many places, and I hope that my words of assurance on how I want this measure to b taken forward will allow the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment. It is well intentioned, but it would place a burden on conservation advisers that they are not equipped to deal with. For the reasons that I have laid out, it is probably not appropriate to have to estimate in advance the costs of every proposal and its monitoring.

Richard Benyon: The difficulty is that the Ministers points are relatively subjective. Unless we have a commitment that binds future Ministers and authorities, together with a proportionate approach, the kinds of difficulties faced in Strangford lough could happen elsewhere. I am not in the business of limiting environmental accountability and protection. I believe that environmental impact assessments, certainly for large-scale wind-powered developments are necessary. However, he has yet to provide any evidence of proportionality in the Bill. I think that inspiration might be on its way, in which case I am very happy to allow him to intervene. That might encourage me to withdraw the amendment. I look forward to his intervention.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I might be able to provide some clarity on two aspects. First, clause 71(1) enables the MMO to put conditions into licences as it thinks fit. If those conditions are unreasonable, an appeals mechanism is in place for developers to challenge them. Secondly, I want to flag up what would happen if a statutory conservation body was to give disproportionate or unreasonable advice. I hope that will not happen, but if public authorities must have regard to the advice received from a statutory conservation body, it is not bound by it, and the authority would be very unlikely to follow any advice deemed inappropriate for whatever reason. One improvement that we have made to the licensing system is to introduce an appeals mechanism that will give applicants the ability to appeal any decision made by the licensing authority, so if a developer thinks that the conditions attached to the licence are too onerous or unjustified it can challenge that decision before an independent body.

Richard Benyon: I am grateful for that inspired response, which will give the necessary comfort to those seeking to develop different types of wave and sea energy, who will be reassured to know that they have the comfort of a full independent appeals process and that some wording on proportionality exists in the legislation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 127 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. (David Wright.)

Adjourned till Thursday 2 July at Nine oclock.